Crl. Revn. No. 14432 of 2008 (O&M). Case: Smt. Renu Mittal Vs Jitender and Another. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | Crl. Revn. No. 14432 of 2008 (O&M) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Adv. |
| Judges | Mrs. Sabina, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 |
| Judgement Date | August 22, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Sabina, J., (At Chandigarh)
-
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 19.05.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Revision whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the summoning order passed by the trial Court dated 19.05.2007 was set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
-
The learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the petition has held as under:-
At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners touched only the law point and rightly so. It was argued that the petitioners could not be held liable merely because they had a joint account with Ram Saran. There was nothing on record to show that any joint business was being run by the petitioners with the deceased and that the bank account pertained to any joint Hindu family business. It was rightly argued that mere existence of a joint account cannot make the survivors liable if the person who issued the cheque was dead. Even otherwise if joint business was not proved, the liability could be only of the person who issued the cheque and not the other joint account holders. Reliance was placed in this regard on the authorities reported as Savita H. Sorle and others Vs. Rajesh Damidar Sarode and another 2006(3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 21. Dharmendera Kumbhat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2005(1) CCC 768. Smt. Bandeep Kaur Vs. S.Avneet Singh 2008(2) R.C.R. (Crl.), 82 and Devi Vs. Haridar 2004(4) R.C.R. (Crl.) 641. The legal representative at Ram Saran could not be proceeded against only because they had a joint account with him.
The authority relied on by the trial court in the judgment reported as S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and anr. 2005(4) R.C.R. (Crl.) 141 will not be applicable because in that case also as in the case of U.P. Pollution Control Board (Supra), the cheque was issued by a company and it was held that the persons responsible for conduct of the business of the company would be liable. In the present case the complainant...
To continue reading
Request your trial